I’m not suggesting anything. I’ve not made the assertion that a waveform collapse equals a choice equals consciousness. I also didn’t say that determinist processes equals consciousness.
If you (the royal you) state that particles choose, will full awareness of both the external world and their internal state, to exhibit a spin of 1 then maybe we are talking about consciousness. The effort to back those claims is on you, not me.
Ah, I think I get it. I actually prefer dialogue to debate - i.e. I have no interest in convincing anybody of anything.
Exactly - hence, therein lies the problem with the “free” end of “free will” - the limitations of conscious experience. Just because we aren’t conscious of something doesn’t mean it isn’t there, messing with the results.
Why on earth would anyone listen to your dialogue if you’re not invested in the correctness of your ideas? Are you expecting to just to convinced people with cool sounding statements irrespective of their truth?
Well, right.
That’s what the wrench was for. DUH!
But what makes it any less real than this one?
[awaits suitably zenlike answer]
Best not to. Don’t encourage it. Its sense of humor is childish, cruel, usually gross, and almost never dark in any truly funny or interesting way.
The point of debate as such is not so much to convince anyone as to construct a sound and defensible case (always a profitable intellectual exercise in and of itself, for all participating). If you’re not even interested in that, try IMHO or MPSIMS or, mood requiring, the Pit.
No, but, if we are not conscious of something and have no other good reason to infer its existence, then Occam’s Razor says we should reject/discount/ignore it.
What if we do have a good reason to infer its existence? Wouldn’t that change the equation?
That depends on the strength of the reason; the scientific method would involve testing it, against observed data and against alternative hypotheses.
From the link: “The gist of it is this: They say they have proved that if humans have free will, then elementary particles – like atoms and electrons – possess free will as well.”
Well, well. Is that what they say? The Pope says God is a Trinity. Douglas Adams said it all came down to 42. I suppose this team has “proved” it to their own satisfaction; wake us when real physicists take it seriously.
Conway may be a grand old mathematician, but the idea that electrons have “free will” is absurd. For one thing, it would violate Maxwell’s Laws. Let me know when you find a Romeo and Juliet pair of electrons that have managed to attract one another.
It’s all a load of dingos’ kidneys for any number of reasons, not least that electrons have no power of communication, manipulation, mobility, or internal organization. What would an electron do with free will? Humans have a vast range of potential activities – love, war, art, diplomacy, mathematics, exploration, service, devotion. Let us know when electrons start composing sonnets – or even manage to pick up a pen.
Fermion! Fermion! Wherefore art thou Fermion?
Deny thy photon and reverse thy strange
Or, if tau wilt not, be but spun my charm
And I’ll no longer be Quark or Lepton!
I love this forum! Superb!
Swear not by the inconstant graviton!
BZZZZZTTT!!! Sorry, no points! How could you not have used “Muon”?!
'Tis not so deep as a Hill Sphere
Nor as wide as a baryon door
But it will do
…
A positron both your Higgses!
Where is the übernerd so OCD
As to brave the strings and gauges of outrageous theory
To wed the body of this work to Planck and Fermi?
'twould surely be a Bohr to undertake
What a piece of work is a muon!
How noble in bosons,
How infinite in symmetry!
Ohhhh! A million times better! Kick me, Horatio!
You mean like random death? Or even just death in general?
Quite the life of the party, this universe.
Well, there is that thing where humans, the pinnacle of creation, have to use toilet paper, you have to admit, that is pretty hilarious.